• Prof Kwabena Biritwum Nyarko, Research around sanitation surcharges Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST included in property rates in Ghana • Dr Charles Yaw Oduro, Department of Planning, KNUST Synthesis of findings in Akuapem North, Ga West and Kumasi • Dr Eugene Appiah-Effah, Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST Note More front cover options in separate file, “ Powerpoint Template – Front cover options” (N.b. – PINK BOXES FOR GUIDANCE ONLY. DO NOT USE IN YOUR PRESENTATION!)
Contents 01 Introduction 02 Profile of study areas 03 Approach and methodology 04 Presentation of key findings 05 Recommendations 06 Conclusions
Introduction ‒ Sub-Saharan Africa is threatened by poor sanitation resulting from urbanisation. ‒ However, funding for sanitation is a major challenge for most MMDAs. ‒ Main sources of funding for MMDAs are: ‒ District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) ‒ Internally Generated Funds (IGFs) ‒ Central Government Budget Allocations to institutions such as the Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate (EHSD) of MSWR. ‒ Donor support through programmes and projects ‒ Despite these financial arrangements, Ghana is still bedeviled with sanitation challenges. ‒ The main reason for these challenges is the failure of MMDAs to mobilize adequate resources for the effective management of sanitation WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Introduction ‒ To address the challenges of sanitation financing, sanitation surcharges have been introduced in the Akwapim North and Ga West Municipalities ‒ In 2013, the Akuapem North Municipal Assembly introduced an annual flat levy of GHC 5 as the surcharge, which is added to property rate. ‒ Similarly, with support from WSUP, the Ga West Municipal Assembly approved and introduced in October 2016 a 10% surcharge on property rate ‒ The aim of the initiative is to generate additional revenue to supplement existing sources of funding for sanitation service delivery ‒ Revenue from the surcharge is supposed to be ring-fenced for the delivery of sanitation services in the two municipalities ‒ The sanitation surcharge approach is new in Ghana and little is known about whether and how it is working in the two districts ‒ The Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST, was commissioned by WSUP to research the implementation of the surcharge in the two districts WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Objectives The main objective of the research was to help identify ways of ensuring that sanitation surcharges are: a) collected effectively (i.e. in significant amount), and b) disbursed in a cost-effective and pro-poor manner. The specific objectives were to: ‒ assess the history — process, magnitude and use — of the surcharge to date ‒ explore taxpayer attitudes to the [existing or potential] surcharge, through both qualitative research and large-scale survey; ‒ explore decision-maker attitudes to the [existing or potential] surcharge; and ‒ identify, through structured stakeholder consultation and financial analysis, possible expenditures of revenues generated. For KMA: The main objective of the research was to explore the possibility of implementing the sanitation surcharge. WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Study areas Akuapem pem North th Ga West Kumasi si WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Approach and methodology The study was conducted between May and November 2018 and utilised the following data gathering methods: ‒ Desk study ‒ Semi-structured interviews with key informant ‒ Focus Group Discussions ‒ Structured questionnaire administration to property owners Key informants interviewed included: ‒ The Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate of the MSWR ‒ Municipal Budget Officers ‒ Municipal Development Planning Officers ‒ Municipal Environmental Health Officers ‒ Landlords and Landladies Associations This approach provided a comprehensive picture of how the policy has been implemented in the two Municipalities and prospects for its implementation in the Kumasi Metropolis. WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Key findings Akuapem North and Ga West Municipalities Assemblies’ perspectives on what constitutes sanitation Both Akuapem North and Ga West Municipal Assemblies define sanitation to include a broad range of activities that promote environmental health. ‒ Collection and sanitary disposal of wastes, including solid wastes, liquid wastes, excreta, industrial wastes, health-care and other hazardous wastes; ‒ Storm-water drainage; ‒ Cleansing of thoroughfares, markets and other public spaces; ‒ Control of pests and vectors of disease; ‒ Food hygiene; ‒ Environmental sanitation education; ‒ Inspection and enforcement of sanitary regulations; ‒ Disposal of the dead; ‒ Control of rearing and straying of animals; ‒ Monitoring the observance of environmental standards (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 2010) WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Key findings Akuapem North and Ga West Municipalities Taxpayers’ attitudes to the property rate ‒ Most taxpayers in the two municipalities have a positive attitude towards property rate, in terms of their awareness, willingness and actual commitment to its payment. ‒ The level of property owners’ awareness about property rate is very high, particularly in Akuapem North where 96% of respondents said they were aware. ‒ The proportion of property owners who are willing to pay property rate is less than the proportion that is aware of the existence of the tax. ‒ The main reasons cited by property rate defaulters for non-payment were: ‒ either revenue collectors of the Assemblies failed to go to them to collect it or nobody had ever requested them to pay the rate. ‒ respondents did not trust the Assemblies to put funds generated from property rate to good use or utilize the funds in a manner that would benefit them (respondents). WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Key findings Akuapem North and Ga West Municipalities Messaging of the sanitation surcharge policy to taxpayers ‒ The policy had not been effectively communicated to taxpayers since an overwhelming majority (98 – 99%) of property owners were not aware of it ‒ However, Assembly officials in both municipalities indicated taxpayers had duly been informed about sanitation surcharge ‒ Communication methods on surcharge to property owners are: ‒ Invitation of representatives of property owners and other taxpayers to the Assembly during fee fixing sessions; ‒ Directing Assembly Members and the sub-district structures (Town/Area Councils) to relay information about sanitation surcharge and other policies of the Assembly to communities within their jurisdiction; and ‒ Public announcements using the Assembly’s information vans. WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Key findings Akuapem North and Ga West Municipalities Decision- makers’ attitudes towards the sanitation surcharge ‒ Decision-makers indicated that the sanitation surcharge is a good policy that has the potential to improve sanitation service delivery. ‒ Despite this acceptance of the policy, commitment to its implementation was very low, which could also mean that issues of sanitation are not a top priority for the Assemblies. ‒ The low level of commitment to implementation of the policy was evident in the failure of the Assemblies to put in measures to track the collection, disbursement and utilization of proceeds from sanitation surcharge. ‒ Revenue collected through the surcharge is not ring-fenced for sanitation improvement. WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Key findings Akuapem North and Ga West Municipalities Taxpayers’ attitudes towards the sanitation surcharge ‒ Most taxpayers are opposed to sanitation surcharge. A small minority (21-23%) of property owners in the two municipalities explicitly expressed willingness to pay. ‒ Among property owners who expressed their willingness to pay something extra for sanitation improvement, males were more likely to be willing than females. ‒ Property owners with at least primary education were more likely to be willing than those without formal education while those whose household income belonged to the fifth quintile were more willing than those in other income brackets. ‒ However, in Ga West, willingness to pay did not have a statistically significant association with gender, education or income. ‒ The level of taxpayers’ support for the sanitation surcharge policy in the two municipalities is generally low. ‒ However, most few taxpayers who knew about the policy said they supported it. This implies that stepping up awareness creation and sensitisation among taxpayers could increase their support for the policy. WSUP | Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor
Recommend
More recommend
